- From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:58:07 -0400
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Cc: Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com>, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>, "public-nextweb@w3.org" <public-nextweb@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 29, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Clint Hill wrote: > >> Beyond potentially alienating folks due to W3C association and Invited >> Expert process, was there more you could elaborate on? > > No. I just don't see any benefits (just more admin). The quality and health of a group should be judged on its outputs and communication, not if it's a CG or WG. I personally think we have been doing good work over the last 6 months as a CG, and we are just getting started. Admittedly, in terms of outputs, we have stalled in the last 4 months so we still need to find a way to address that as a group. > > If we find that we eventually want to produce specs (or IPR issues start getting in the way in some serious way), then we should absolutely push to become a WG. > > > -- > Marcos Caceres > Marcos et all - it is exactly things like IPR issues that I am attempting to address with this question. We should (and increasingly do) have involvement and participation from folks who *are* in WGs or work with vendors and, for them, the IPR differences between CG and WG are quite different. This is why I pointed the question that way. -- Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 15:58:35 UTC